Hasan v. Johnson

Filing 144

ORDER DENYING 141 Motion for Post-Judgment Interest, Costs, and Fees signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/27/2014. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

JAWWAAD HASAN,

14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
B. JOHNSON,

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-0381-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST, COSTS, AND
FEES
(ECF NO. 141)

Defendant.

18
19
20
21

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) This matter proceeds on Plaintiff’s complaint
against Defendant for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Order

22
23

Dismissing Claims and Defendants, ECF No. 19.)

24

On December 13, 2013, Defendant filed notice that Plaintiff had accepted an offer

25

of judgment of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. (ECF No. 139.)

26

The Court entered a judgment of dismissal on December 24, 2013. (ECF No. 140.)

27
28

1
2
3

Before this Court is Plaintiff’s motion for post-judgment interest, costs and fees.
(ECF No. 141.) Defendant filed an opposition to the motion on January 27, 2014. (ECF
No. 142.) The time to file reply documents has passed and none were filed. This matter

4
is deemed submitted.
5
6

Plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement with Defendant, in which he gave up

7

his rights to pursue post-judgment interest, costs, and fees. (Settlement Agreement, ECF

8

No. 143.) The agreement states, “Unless expressly stated otherwise, no interest shall be

9

paid on the settlement amount.” (Settlement Agreement at 2, ¶ III.4.) It then goes on to

10

provide that, other than the settlement amount, “[n]o other monetary sum will be paid to

11

Plaintiff” and “[e]ach party shall bear its own costs and attorney’s fees.” (Settlement

12
13
14
15

Agreement at 2, ¶ III.5-6.) Thus, the settlement agreement expressly rules out any
interest, costs, or fees being paid.
Generally, “the construction and enforcement of settlement agreements are

16

governed by principles of local law which apply to interpretation of contacts generally.”

17

O’Neil v. Bunge Corp., 365 F.3d 820, 822 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting United Commercial

18
19

Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Paymaster Corp., 962 F.2d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 1992)). Under California
law, “[t]he fundamental goal of contract interpretation is to give effect to the mutual intent

20
21

of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting.” Skilstaf, Inc. v. CVS Caremark

22

Corp., 669 F.3d 1005, 1014-15 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Miller v. Glenn Miller Prods., Inc.,

23

454 F.3d 975, 989 (9th Cir. 2006) (per curiam)). Here, the parties’ mutual intent to forego

24

any rights to interest, costs, and fees is plain on the face of the settlement agreement.

25
26

Under the terms of the settlement agreement he entered into, Plaintiff is unable to
recover post-judgment interest, costs, or fees from Defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

27
motion for same is hereby DENIED.
28
2

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3

Dated:

June 27, 2014

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3